Posted on 03/22/2015 7:55:18 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
The problem as I see it is that neither a Republic nor a Libertarian form of government is compatible with an amoral society such as we have today.
Now tell us how you would also have us outlaw alcohol and tobacco which both fit your analysis of what is evil and dangerous and we need a state to prevent us from harming ourselves.
As for drug overdoses, prescription drugs are the main problem there and so we can assume you want to outlaw them too.
Now as for punishment, what prison for all those who don’t do as you want. Their bodies belong to the state your way.
Christianity can get along with most forms of governing pragmatism because it is not a form of government. Libertarianism is not practical unless you are a lawyer who profits on endless relitigation and it is therefore a belief system, not a way to govern. Furthermore Randian libertarianism (which seems to be the primary variety to be found on the right) was the basis for LaVey Satanism, making it an even stranger bedfellow for Christianity.
Conservatism OTOH is a governing principle which is a pragmatic amalgam of things that have been found to work in the past. There is a little of this, a little of that, and both Christians and Libertarians can find something to be happy about. Nobody gets everything they want, remember this is about governing.
Is libertarianism compatible with the constitution. Yes.
Is Christianity compatible with the constitution. Yes.
Is libertarianism compatible with Christianity. Yes.
Is modern so-called liberalism compatible with libertarianism, the constitution, or Christianity. No.
Very stupid question. Ask yourself, “WHAT DOES CHRISTIANITY, “REAL CHRISTIANITY” STAND FOR”? I’m not talking about Christians that “SOW” their wild oats all week, and then go to church on Sunday, to pray for a crop failure. I’m talking about “TRUE CHRISTIANS”. These “TRUE CHRISTIANS” want, most of all, FREEDOM. They don’t want government interferance on what they do. They want every one to be treated the same way, without government interferance. They expect the government to protect them from “BAD PEOPLE”, and when the government fails to do so, they have the right to protect themselves.
As we believe each domain has a different master.
And, we don't want the government to be the master of our spiritual or moral lives since government is not spiritual or moral...and cannot be.
That is not to say that people (cough *libertarians*) won’t try to make conservatism out to be what they want instead of listening to previous generations advice about best practices.
Is liberalism political or religious ?
If it’s religious ( or takes the place of religion) then it’s incompatible with the constitution. And might explain why liberals admit they are liberals in about one percent of cases
I think liberalism has been appropriated by something else that is a religion in all but name. Liberalism the governing principal is the counterweight to conservatism.
A key to understanding which you are dealing with is to consider how proponents deal with people who don’t agree with them. Do they try to find a way forward via negotiation and compromise, or do they insist that they alone possess the truth and try to destroy anyone who disagrees?
True that! Have you perchance read the book I mentioned in the thread by M. Stanton Evans?
And what a staggering refutation of what I said.
Thanks....:)
I’ve yet to meet a libertarian who isn’t a moral anarchist.
The libertarian position is "they are not Caesar's". They are on your side.
No.
Long time no see.
How are things?
The libertarian position would ALSO be against government involvement in "anti discrimination", where individuals and businesses would be free to choose not to do business (and other interactions) with any one for any reason. This is something not often mentioned in anti-libertarian diatribes.
ok... i’ll bite..
define morality...
There is far more noise being made to advance same sex marriage as a ‘thing’ than there is being made to protect the right of refusal for a photographer. Lawyers enjoy ‘right to refuse service’ on ideological grounds. Would that everyone could do so.
Bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.